ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP

See the public comment announcement on this topic:  Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDR.  The public comment period is open through 14 July.

Final ALAC Statement as it was submitted:  ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.

----

Please use the "Add Comment" function below to leave comments (and specify which draft your comment pertains to).  Thank you.

There are two different draft statements below on which community members may comment:

   -  A draft ALAC statement by Eric Brunner-Williams, in English

   -  A draft LACRALO statement, by José Arce, in both Spanish and English  (Note:  The English translation is rough.)


Draft ALAC statement

ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP

The Issue Report (Preliminary) has been prepared by Staff at the request of
the GNSO Council. Procedurally, production of the Preliminary Issues Report,
a public comment period, and a Final Issues Report are predicates to a
determination by the GNSO Council whether or not to commence a policy
development process (PDP) on the UDRP.

ALAC supports the Staff summary that the UDRP can be improved through modest
improvements of its implementation.

ALAC also supports the Staff recommendation that a PDP on the UDRP not be
initiated at this time.

If the GNSO adopts the Staff recommendation to convening a small group of
experts to produce recommendations to improve the process or implementation
of the UDRP, ALAC recommends that the improvements address the problems
identified by Professor Komaitis concerning meritless capture of domains.

The ALAC has comments on the Staff Recommendation.

First, the means by which two or more parties resolve a dispute concerning
the status of registrant of record of a registered domain name is a policy,
but it is not a policy which can preserve and enhance the operational
stability, reliability, security and interoperatibility of the Internet.

The determination of the registrant of record of a registered domain name
has no relationship to the operational stability, reliability, security and
interoperatibility of the Internet. The policy has obvious benefits, this
simply isn't one of them.

Second, while the UDRP "applies uniformly to all registrants of gTLDs and
to all registrars", in theory, in practice the utilization of the UDRP
concerning domain names registered in .aero, .coop, .museum, .cat, and
perhaps others, is negligible. It is useful to have a uniform policy of
uniform applicability, where this policy does not create disproportionate
harm, and accomplishes desired ends.

Discussion of the UDRP should be informed as to where it is useful, in
fact necessary, and where it is not, as this awareness relates to the
market forces that create the problem for which the UDRP is a solution.

Third, while "a review of the UDRP could be instructive as a guide or
framework for how to conduct reviews of other policies", other reviews,
past and prospective, possess the same potential.

Finally, ALAC commends Staff for preparing the UDRP Questionaire, and
the summary of issues raised by respondents in the community, and also
the Provider respondents to the UDRP Questionaire -- the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO), the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the
Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), and the Czech
Arbitration Court (CAC). These work products, of Staff, and respondents,
and their presence in the record through the Preliminary Issue Report,
constitute effective and informed notice and comment.

Draft LACRALO statement:  Spanish version

Comentarios de (LacRalo o  Personal) acerca del Reporte del GNSO sobre el estado actual de las políticas Uniformes de Resolución de Disputas.

La región de América Latina y Caribe (o mi  persona) se manifiesta acerca de los Comentario del Reporte sobre UDRP del GNSO, del 3 de febrero de 2011, a los fines de llevar la voz de los usuarios sobre este importante tema que afecta principalmente a ellos, y colaborar con el GNSO a los fines de decidir iniciar o no una PDP para las UDRP. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/prelim-report-udrp-27may11-en.htm.

Luego de haber revisado innumerables documentos y participado de las reuniones hechas a tales fines, sumada la propia experiencia de sus miembros, “LacRalo” adelanta su posición de la Negativa de la revision de las UDRP en el estado actual de la discusión.  

                Como primera aproximación queremos destacar la complejidad del tema, ya que es la política más vieja que tiene ICANN y de la cual se habla en todo el mundo; sumado que a través del tiempo se fueron desarrollando prácticas “buenas” y “abusivas” alrededor de la registración de nombres de dominio, lo que llevo a la discusión de muchos temas como 1.- Who is 2.- Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery 3.- Abuse registration y otros, los cuales no son ajenos a la tematica..

La visión de Lacralo se forma teniendo en cuenta todos los temas en su conjunto, analizando el todo y sus partes, sin perder de vista las necesidades y condiciones actuales de los usuarios de Internet. Y resaltar que solo estamos discutiendo “la necesidad de la revisión” y no las distintas revisiones que deben hacerse.

Existen actualmente, quizás, dos polos bien diferenciados acerca de la cuestión, el del aquellos que se manifiesta por la afirmativa del inicio de una PDP, como varios miembros del NCUC y por otro lado, los que están en contra, como staff de ICANN que se manifiestan por la negativa. Durante los diversos encuentros se discutieron cuestiones sustantivas y de procedimiento de las políticas; tuvieron la oportunidad de hablar los diferentes actores, académicos, miembros de los proveedores de servicio de resolución, abogados, etc.

Es así que (LACRALO o Mi persona ) considera los siguientes puntos en base a los últimos eventos:

1) Hacemos notar que esta política, es la más vieja pero, no se ha provisto ICANN en su página http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm el documento en los idiomas para que los usuarios puedan acceder a ella. Sino solo el reglamento de la misma http://www.icann.org/es/dndr/udrp/uniform-rules-es.htm, que no es de uso obligatorio para los proveedores,  y solo prevalecerá este sobre los otros en caso de ser contradictorio.

2) Que la diversidad de temas que involucra esta temática, solo lleva a la confusión de muchas personas, usuarios de internet, sin saber que hacer a la hora de adquirir un dominio y como actuar en caso de una controversia.

3) Que el proceso de PDP no necesariamente involucra una modificación, sino mas una tarea intelectual de carácter multistakeholder.

4) Que la recomendación del Staff de ICANN acerca de la creación de un grupo de expertos para el examen del tema, antes de la modificación, no puede darse por concluido con las actividades hechas hasta el momento, es decir con el informe del GNSO, el webinar y la reunión en Singapur.

5) No se puede afirmar que la posible modificación va a socavar la actual política, ya que no se puede hacer predicciones en estas cuestiones y se necesita argumentos validos para aponerse a la modificación.

6) Ante la existencia de diversos estudios serios no relevados en estas instancias, tal cual lo nombran varias personas del NCUC, hacen necesaria la incorporación de estas y la mayor investigación acerca de la realidad e historia de las UDRP.

7) El surgimiento de los Nuevos GTLD, con una política propia de resolución URS, solo debe ser tenida en cuenta a los fines de la actual UDRP y no debe servir de excusa para tomar una u otra decisión.  

8)  Que es considerado por su trascendencia como un tema de mucha importancia para ser tratado y que no se puede decir que existen otros con una mayor prioridad. 

9) Que los temas que se han discutido con seriedad pero se necesitan más argumentos basados en las experiencias de las 5 regiones.

Por todo esto LACRALO  (o mi persona) considera pertinente destacar:

Hasta el momento las Políticas han funcionado muy bien, pero sin dejar de lado las diversas dificultades que se suscitan para los usuarios y otros actores involucrados.

No consideramos que el tema haya sido abordado de la forma que corresponde, ya que después de 10 años de funcionamiento de las políticas es necesario que se aborde de forma multidisciplinaria y con discusiones más profundas basadas en la experiencia e investigación. El tema es de gran importancia y complejidad por lo que debe ser tratado como tal, consecuentemente creemos necesario un abordaje más amplio.

 Que una modificación a la UDRP puede esperar hasta que se termine de realizar un análisis detallado y profundo de las políticas y sus diversas prácticas. Las voces que han pasado hasta el momento no representan el consenso para hacer el PDP y tampoco representan, objetivamente, los diez años de vida de las políticas.

LACRALO no considera que una revisión de las políticas socave a la misma (como bien expreso Wendy Seltzer en Simgapur), porque decir eso sería considerar que los cambios y revisiones en general serian inapropiadas para todas las políticas y que solamente si una política fracasa sería viable la misma. Y no está en discusión si los cambios van a ser sustanciales o no, sino si es necesario su modificación para mejorar la Política.

Lacralo (o mi persona) es consciente que esta política fue, es y será adoptada de forma voluntaria por muchos Usuarios de Internet, por diversas razones y que su éxito es indiscutible, por lo que no podemos dejar de darle el lugar que merece.  

Por lo tanto LACRALO (o mi persona) concluye:

                                                          Se decida o no someterla a revisión, momento actual, el que creemos que no es el adecuado, debe hacérselo con una mirada multistakeholder e investigando las consecuencias diversas de los diez años de práctica, en las 5 regiones del mundo que considera ICANN.

No podemos negar que si la revisión (PDP) de la política incluye este tipo de investigación, sin el establecimiento de plazos perentorios que entorpezcan la calidad de las mismas y la participación de múltiples actores, como hasta el momento, sería una vía adecuada para su realización.

Creemos, además, que se está discutiendo si se debe revisar o no y también porque vía debe hacerse, pero en realidad debería discutirse como realizar las investigaciones para dar sustento a los posibles cambios. Y discutir con más argumentos si realmente se trata de cambios en el procedimiento solamente, como dicen algunos, o involucrara cambios sustanciales.

Muchas de las personas involucradas, como se dijo en las charlas, tienen y sienten cierto miedo en las consecuencias de la revisión. Cuestión que tiñe las miradas a la hora de tomar decisiones de este tipo y no permiten abordar la situación de una perspectiva constructiva.

Siendo este el estado actual de discusión, no se puede determinar el qué, cómo, cuándo y cuánto y más aun teniendo en cuenta que los actores involucrados, sostienen visiones diversas y algunos en un estado de confusión y miedo,  concluimos que no es el momento adecuado de llevar adelante un proceso de PDP.

Pero sí apoyamos su realización, en un futuro próximo, basada en una real “necesidad” bien definida por sus actores, luego de establecer de una manera clara el objetivo y alcance de la reforma.

  

Draft LACRALO statement:  English Version

Comments (LACRALO or Personal) on the GNSO Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution.

The Latin America and Caribbean (or me) is manifested on the Report on UDRP Review of the GNSO, the February 3, 2011, in order to bring the voice of users on this important issue that affects mainly them, and work with the GNSO for the purposes of deciding whether to initiate a PDP for the UDRP or not. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/prelim-report-udrp-27may11-en.htm.

After reviewing numerous documents and participated in the meetings held for this purpose, added the experience of its members, "LACRALO" advances its position as the refusal of the review of the UDRP in the current discussion.

As a first approximation we want to highlight the complexity of the issue, as is the older policy that ICANN has and which is spoken throughout the world, added that over time they developed practices "good" and "abusive" about the registration of domain names, which led to discussion of many topics such as 1 .- who is 2 .- post Expiration domain name recovery  3 .- Abuse registration and others, who are no strangers to the subject ..

LACRALO's vision is formed taking into account all the issues together, looking at the whole and its parts without losing sight of the needs and current conditions of Internet users. And note that we are only discussing "the need for review" and the various revisions to be made.

There are now perhaps two distinct poles on the issue, those states in the affirmative the start of a PDP, as several members of the NCUC and on the other hand, those who are against it, as ICANN staff manifest in the negative. During the meeting discussed various procedural and substantive issues of policy, had the opportunity to discuss the different actors, academics, members of the resolution service providers, lawyers, etc.

 (LACRALO or me) consider the following points based on recent events:

1) We note that this policy is the oldest, but ICANN has not been provided on its web http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm the document in the languages ​​for which users can access it. But only the rules of the same http://www.icann.org/es/dndr/udrp/uniform-rules-es.htm, which is not mandatory for providers, and only shall prevail over the other in case to be contradictory.

2) The range of issues involving this issue, only leads to confusion for many people, Internet users, not knowing what to do when buying a domain and do in case of a dispute.

3) The PDP process does not necessarily involve a modification, but more an intellectual task of multistakeholder nature.

4) That the ICANN Staff's recommendation on the establishment of a group of experts for review of the subject, before the amendment can not be terminated with the activities done so far is the report of the GNSO, the webinar and the meeting in Singapore.

5) can not be said that any amendment will undermine the current policy, and you can not make predictions on these matters and you need valid arguments to appose the modification.

6) In the presence of no serious studies surveyed in these instances, as is so named several people from the NCUC, necessitates the incorporation of these and more research about the reality and history of the UDRP.

7) The emergence of new gTLDs, with its own policy resolution URS, should only be taken into account for purposes of the current UDRP and should not be an excuse to take one decision or another.

8) What is considered by its importance as an issue of great importance to be treated and you can not say that there are others with higher priority.

9) That the issues have been discussed seriously but more arguments based on the experiences of the 5 regions.

For all this LACRALO (or me) considers pertinent to note:

So far policies have worked well, but without ignoring the various difficulties that arise for users and other stakeholders.

We do not consider the issue has been addressed in an appropriate way, because after 10 years of operation of policies need to be addressed in a multidisciplinary manner and further discussions based on experience and research. The issue is of great importance and complexity should therefore be treated as such, therefore we need a broader approach.

  A modification to the UDRP can wait until you finish making a detailed and thorough analysis of its various policies and practices. The voices that have gone so far do not represent the consensus for the PDP and do not represent objectively the ten years of life policies.

LACRALO not consider that a review of policies undermine it (as well expressed in Simgapur Wendy Seltzer), it would be to say that the changes and revisions in general would be inappropriate for all policies and fails only if a policy would be viable it. And there is debate as to whether the changes will be substantial or not, but if necessary to modify them to improve the policy.
LACRALO (or me) is aware that this policy was, is and will be adopted voluntarily by many Internet users, for various reasons and that their success is indisputable, so we can not give the place it deserves.

Therefore LACRALO (or me) concludes:

                                                           They decide or not to submit a review, we believe is inappropriate at this moment, you should let a multistakeholder look and investigate various consequences of the ten years of practice, in the 5 regions of the world considers ICANN.

We can not deny that if the review (PDP) policy includes this type of research without setting deadlines that hinder their quality and participation of multiple actors, as at present, would be an appropriate route for realization.

We also believe we are discussing whether to review or not and also because it means be done, but it really should be discussed as conducting research to bear on any changes. And discuss more arguments if it is really only procedural changes, as some say, or involve substantial changes.

Many of the people involved, as discussed in the talks and meetings, feel they have some fear of the consequences of the review. Situation that does not allow a correct analysis when we have to take decisions and not allow to address the situation in a constructive perspective.

Being this the current state of discussion, we can not determine what, how, when and how much and even more considering that the actors involved hold different views and some of them are in a state of confusion and fear. We conclude that is not the time appropriate to carry out a PDP process.

But we do support its implementation in the near future, based on a real "need" well defined by its actors, after establishing a clear purpose and scope of reform.

  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. José Francisco Arce has posted his comments regarding the preliminary Issue Report, following the LACRALO conference call on July 7 2011 but in Spanish. 
    José Arce's comments can be found at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/877052/lacralo-comments/UDRP-comments.pdf

  2. Staff's recommendation to convening a SMALL group of experts to produce recommendations to improve the process or implementation
    of the UDRP is concerning. UDRP was drafted by a small group of experts primarily from North America a decade ago. Its clear trait of American law (especially ACPA) actually plaguing its implementation. If it is to be reviewed, studied or whatever else, the group should be open up to all 5 geo-regions and especially experts from non-Latin language community and world large Internet community who have no conflict of interests, rather than limited to the existing elite club known to ICANN. 

  3. Anonymous

    Comments by Jean-Jacques Subrenat:

    - I very much agree with XUE Hong that the challenge here is to enlarge the scope, in order to make dispute resolution more representative of jurisdictions across the world. This would be in line with the frequent call, by the Board and others, for ICANN to assume its international stature with more conviction. Also, this would bring to the fore some best practices, not all of which are to be found in one (say, North American) jurisdiction alone.